1. The post election landscape
Jeff Houston
Head of Pensions

2. This briefing will cover
The return of structural reform
The Scheme Advisory Board work-plan
Separation
Cost management 2016
What to do about Deficits?
Not even going to get into the green paper on pensions tax reform or tapered relief for high earners

3. Post election landscape
The Rt Hon
Greg Clark MP
Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Marcus Jones MP
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Minister for Local Government)
The Rt Hon
Greg Hands MP
Chief Secretary to the Treasury
The Rt Hon
Matthew Hancock MP
Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General

4. The return of structural reform
May 2013 Let’s have 5 funds DCLG/LGA roundtable
June 2013 Call for evidence
Dec 2013 Hymans report
May 2014 government response to call for evidence
May 2014 Let’s have 2 CIVs open consultation – CIVs and passive investment
July 2014 consultation closes
April 2015 pre election period and conspicuous silence
June 2015 rumbles from within government
July 2015 – Let’s have pooled investment......

5. The return of structural reform
Total expenses £644m (£504m investment, £140m administration) 1
Disclosed investment costs were 0.26% but these ranged from 1.13% to 0.02%1
Hymans estimated actual investment costs (including transaction fees) at £800m but some estimates put costs nearer double at over £1b
Using £1b for investments then total costs 0.63%2 in 2014
Consultation highlighted potential savings of £230m by moving to passive and £240m by moving away from fund of funds for alternatives
Question of mandatory CIVs still firmly on the table within government (for both passive and alternatives)
Announcement in Summer Budget......
1LGPS Annual report 2014
2using a total asset value of £190b

6. The return of structural reform
Red book page 78
‘2.19 Local Government Pension Scheme pooled investments – The government will work with Local Government Pension Scheme administering authorities to ensure that they pool investments to significantly reduce costs, while maintaining overall investment performance. The government will invite local authorities to come forward with their own proposals to meet common criteria for delivering savings. A consultation to be published later this year will set out those detailed criteria as well as backstop legislation which will ensure that those administering authorities that do not come forward with sufficiently ambitious proposals are required to pool investments.’

7. The return of structural reform a bit more detail....
Strategic asset allocation, administration and valuations will all remain at the local fund level
The sector has on opportunity to put forward proposals on the size, shape, number and make-up of the pooled vehicles to be utilised
We also have an opportunity to make a case for exemptions from the default position of all assets for all funds (with all listed assets invested on a passive basis)
Message loud and clear: this is a one time offer, come up with a workable structure we are happy with or we will

8. The return of structural reform SAB response....
Putting the case for sector led pooled vehicle structures and sensible exemptions e.g.
Use of existing initiatives (London CIV)
Use of multi asset and/or specialist vehicles and how many?
Could active mandates be available within the pools and on what terms?
Could local use of asset initiatives be exempted?
Will in-house investment be exempt or pooled with others?
Could funds who match or beat target costs get an exemption?
How will costs be measured (net or gross) and consistency ensured?

9. SAB work plan - separation
Why?
IORP requirements?
Increasing potential for conflict of interest
Three options being investigated
Soft split inside the host authority – higher walls around the fund
One step removed – use of joint committees or combined authorities
Complete disengagement – new bodies to run the funds

10. SAB work plan – cost management
First cost management assessments after 2016 valuations
Which way will future costs go?
HMT imposed items up to 0.7%
50/50 up to 0.5%
Commutation, increases in longevity up to ??%
Options could include stripping away some elements and/or changing accrual rate

11. What to do about deficits – the financial background
40% cut in government funding since 20101
£10 billion of gross savings found in the three years from 2011/121
Council tax now funds around half of local government spending* (up from 40% in 2010)2
Net service spend down from £115b in to £95b in
Spending per person down by 23.4% on average 2
Cuts in spend have varied across the country from 46.3% to 6.2% per person 2
Largest cuts in spend have fallen on London, North West and North East 2
53% (and rising) of net service spend goes on adult social care 2
A further £13b is to be found from government departments from 2015 to 2019/20 when expenditure will rise in line with growth
However local authority reserves rose to approximately £24b only £4b of which is neither ring-fenced nor earmarked 4
Source 1LGA 2 IFS * excluding directly funded activities 4 DCLG

12. What to do about deficits – LGPS funding
LGPS common contribution rates at 2013 valuation ranged from 13.5% to 39% of payroll1
Funding ratios ranged from 56% to 101% with the average at 79%1
Average deficit contribution is 36% of total1
Total local authority employer contributions in 2014 just under £5b2 so about 5.25% of net spend (or 10.5% of council tax*)
Of which around £1.8b goes toward paying off the deficit
Total deficit is £48b (or £27b using HMT discount rates) 1
Scheme is cash-flow neutral at contributions and benefits level but £3b in the black when investment income is included
Without the deficit the new scheme would cost local authorities about £2.9b3 per annum or about 3% of net spend (or 6% of council tax*)
1SAB 2013 valuation report, 2based on 75% LA membership of LGPS, 3assumes a total £30b payroll and 75% LA membership
*excluding directly funded activities

13. What to do about deficits – the options
Over a third of cost relates to past service deficit. Deficits can be better managed but can only be reduced by extra contributions, lower liabilities or better investment returns
Cuts to future scheme subject to legislative ‘high hurdle’
Benefits (liabilities) already accrued are protected by primary legislation (Pensions Act and European property rights) Any real impact on liabilities would therefore require primary legislation and a shift in government policy
What on the liability side could be on the table?
Are current levels of prudence when measuring liabilities still appropriate especially for tax raising bodies?
Could longer recovery periods, alternative funding models for locked in past service liabilities, alternative benefit structures for designated small employers or a return to longer valuation periods help?
Could a look at LA financing, e.g. rules around the use of reserves and treatment of contributions in spending totals help to lessen the strain without losing sight of the objective?

14. Disclaimer
The information contained in these slides has been prepared by the LGPC Secretariat, a part of the Local Government Association (LGA). It represents the views of the Secretariat, based on our current understanding of the law. It should not be treated as a complete and authoritative statement of the law. Readers may wish, or will need, to take their own legal advice on the interpretation of any particular piece of legislation. No responsibility whatsoever will be assumed by the LGPC Secretariat or the LGA for any direct or consequential loss, financial or otherwise, damage or inconvenience, or any other obligation or liability incurred by readers relying on information contained in these slides.